11:01:21 <jussi> #startmeeting
11:01:21 <meetingology> Meeting started Sat Oct  8 11:01:21 2011 UTC.  The chair is jussi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
11:01:21 <meetingology> 
11:01:21 <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
11:01:25 <topyli> i shouldn't chair
11:01:28 <topyli> ah thanks jussi
11:01:45 <jussi> #topic Bugs
11:01:59 <jussi> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-irc-council
11:02:06 <elky> I thought he fixed that...
11:02:20 <jussi> Anyway, theres just the one bug.
11:02:27 <jussi> any updates from anyone?
11:02:44 <topyli> there's also an action item appointed to me and jussi, not done
11:02:53 <topyli> (related to this bug)
11:03:22 <jussi> Oh far out, Id forgotten about that - lets make sure we get that done by next time
11:03:37 <topyli> yeah
11:03:50 <jussi> right, next topic.
11:03:56 <jussi> #topic Review last meetings action items
11:04:16 * jussi nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson
11:04:25 <jussi> and the one topyli has mentioned
11:04:47 <topyli> i think nhandler has done this
11:04:54 <topyli> oh not the urls
11:04:55 <elky> I believe that was done by collaboration between alanbell and staff actually
11:04:55 <jussi> That one has been partially done but both nhandler and tsimpson are now not really around
11:05:26 <rww> eir is currently set to nag every six hours, so I think that bit's sorted.
11:05:46 <jussi> yeah
11:06:11 <jussi> anywayp, not much more we can do at this time on that.
11:06:40 <elky> next item then?
11:06:58 <jussi> right, so the next item is discussion only, we dont expect to be making a decision today on how this will happen
11:07:04 <jussi> #topic Make Lubuntu channels core after Oneiric release
11:07:13 <jussi> topyli: want to summarise?
11:08:16 <topyli> the main thing here is adding ops to -ops instead of -irc i think, and make sure their conduct is in line with the rest of the team (i.e. following the leadership guidelines and other documentation)
11:08:32 <topyli> the channel works, no issue there afaik
11:09:06 <topyli> this doesn't have to happen one second after release, but eventually core is core
11:09:20 <elky> *if* it happens.
11:09:26 <rww> The channel works because it is tiny, not necessarily because it is correctly run.
11:10:01 <rww> As I've mentioned to the IRCC, I have serious misgivings about adding the current set of #lubuntu operators as core ops, and strongly recommend that they go through an application process to weed out unqualified ops and add qualified ones.
11:10:15 <elky> I personally have strong doubts of the wisdom of putting them in -ops. I think it to be frankly unwise.
11:10:17 <topyli> if the channel grows as a result of lubuntu being official, and/or starts attracting more trolls, we'll help grow the team
11:10:45 <rww> The channel itself I have no problem with being core. I do have a problem with the way IRCC seems to be planning to go about it.
11:10:47 <jussi> I dont think the discussion is about whether the channel becomes core - that to me seems a given. (in line with our policy of what is core and what isnt).
11:11:27 <topyli> well, any ops that are unsuitable will be dealt with just like everybody else, and new ops will be sought as necessary
11:11:29 <elky> jussi, the policy would need to be rewritten if you're going to us the policy as any form of argument for this.
11:11:40 <elky> the policy simply does not handle this situation at all
11:11:50 <elky> s/us/use/
11:12:21 <elky> topyli, we are poor at dealing with troublesome ops we already have.
11:12:26 <topyli> the policy is fine IMO
11:12:38 <topyli> elky: that's a completely different issue
11:12:46 <rww> topyli: Would this be before or after we give them access to the bantracker that some of them have notable entries in? It's already after giving them access to the channel that some of their behavior outside of #lubuntu has been discussed in.
11:13:26 <rww> which was an action I also strongly disagreed with, and which I feel was made despite a shocking lack of communication with the IRC team
11:13:34 <elky> the policy is not at all fine if it would allow people who got to a project channel first, unrelatedly to the development team who earned the right to be official, automatic ops.
11:13:59 <AlanBell> o/
11:15:03 <topyli> so what is your suggestion? get rid of the current lubuntu ops and install some that you like better? that doesn't seem doable, the project will likely change networks then
11:15:50 <rww> topyli: No, my suggestion as I have told you already is to open applications for #lubuntu ops, have all current #lubuntu ops that want to continue to be #lubuntu ops go through it, have anyone else who wants #lubuntu ops go through it, and then set the access list to contain people who pass that process.
11:15:52 <AlanBell> my suggestion is to make them new core ops, on probation like all new core ops
11:15:57 <elky> if they're threatening to flounce to another network, i really don't want them as ops.
11:16:14 <AlanBell> elky: I think that is speculation, not a threat by them
11:16:15 <jussi> AlanBell: this is also my view.
11:16:16 <elky> AlanBell, except not. because there hasn't been the pre-selection process.
11:16:20 <topyli> rww: that is entirely possible and i might even support it
11:16:41 <LjL> i don't think they should get a free pass.
11:16:45 <topyli> AlanBell: it is speculation
11:17:22 <elky> please don't speculate on that matter then, please. it's caused enough issues already in the discussion with them
11:17:44 <AlanBell> ok, so how to back-fill the preselection process
11:17:56 <rww> AlanBell: translate into English, please?
11:17:57 <elky> AlanBell, read what rww wrote above
11:18:04 <topyli> well if you hijack a project, get rid of their people and install yours, you're not going to have a happy ending
11:18:14 <elky> rww, he's asked for the idea you provided earlier
11:18:16 <jussi> topyli: ++
11:18:25 <rww> topyli: We're not hijacking a project. The project is asking to be managed by the IRC team, so they have to play by our rules.
11:18:33 <rww> If they don't want to, they can feel free to not be a core channel.
11:18:38 <LjL> topyli: did someone order them to become a core project?
11:18:40 <elky> rww ++
11:18:46 <elky> in which case the policy is broken
11:18:55 <rww> It'd be regrettable, but it's voluntary on their part as far as I know, and should be.
11:19:05 <topyli> rww: your idea about having the ops go through our normal process is pretty good
11:19:09 <elky> LjL, the core channels policy is.
11:19:12 <jussi> The lubuntu people in as far as I know are somewhat resistant to being managed by the ircc.
11:19:17 <elky> LjL, because it's broken.
11:19:23 <AlanBell> sounds fine to me
11:19:49 <topyli> LjL: of course not. not me anyway :)
11:19:55 <rww> jussi: If the Lubuntu people aren't sure about whether they want to be managed by IRCC, perhaps they should go figure that out and come back if they decide they do.
11:20:26 <jussi> rww: there is no choice, if they are a official derivative, they come under the ircc, as they come under the cc, fc etc
11:20:49 <elky> this discussion is getting circular.
11:20:52 <oCean> fwiw, I'm all for rww's suggestion too
11:20:52 <LjL> right but i don't suppose someone ordered them to be an official derivative either?
11:20:56 <rww> jussi: This is not my interpretation of the IRC Council's scope.
11:21:03 <topyli> the CC has asked the IRCC to manage ubuntu channels, that's reality
11:21:21 <rww> Given that official derivatives have left freenode before, I find it difficult to believe, too.
11:21:40 <head_victim> o/
11:21:44 <rww> (that all official derivatives are managed by IRCC automatically, that is)
11:21:44 <jussi> heya head_victim
11:21:58 <topyli> well we can't manage channels on other networks, that's unrealistic
11:22:15 <head_victim> As a Lubuntu Op (a little inactive but still) I'd just like to say, I'm all for most of what you're proposing (not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself)
11:22:18 <topyli> rww: that's the current policy
11:22:28 <jussi> If there is an official derivative channel on freenode, then the ircc is the governing body.
11:22:41 <elky> head_victim, for what who is proposing? there's two conflicting proposals here.
11:22:56 <head_victim> Either the apply like others or probation, I can see merits in both.
11:23:11 <elky> head_victim, there'll be probation as part of applying like others
11:23:28 <elky> all new ops get probation.
11:23:31 <rww> topyli: This is incorrect. Addition or removal of channels from the core channel list is at the discretion of the IRCC.
11:23:40 <head_victim> elky: and makes perfect sense.
11:23:47 <elky> head_victim, i think so too
11:24:08 <jussi> Im more than happy to have the lubuntu ops on probation, but I think we need to give all of them a chance.
11:24:20 <rww> topyli: You appear to be conflating "managed" in the sense of core channels that are staffed by the IRC team and "managed" in the sense of functioning as group contacts and facilitating the wishes of relevant councils.
11:24:31 <elky> jussi, that is the critical issue we disagree on.
11:24:32 <head_victim> I'd also like a little "welcome package" with some links to some reading to make sure I am doing my job properly.
11:24:38 <rww> jussi: I strongly disagree.
11:24:40 <topyli> rww: true, we can add channels. but removing channels that are support or development of an official derivative would be something i can't support
11:25:05 <elky> There are several ops in the currentl #lubuntu ops list who I would never in a million years consider to be an op based on previous behaviour by them.
11:25:23 <LjL> jussi: i'm quite strongly opposed to giving a chance to someone who's got many relevant bantracker entries, though. i don't know who these people are, but it goes against my every instinct.
11:25:38 <rww> jussi: I feel no need to give people that have demonstrated significant issues that disqualify them from opping our existing core channels a chance. Chances are earned, and they have not.
11:26:11 <elky> I can not and will not support troublesome people getting a shortcut on the ops process. We may as well just shortcut all the trolls as well.
11:26:33 <topyli> that's just not a very useful comparison
11:26:53 <elky> if we shortcut anyone, we have to apply the same benefit to all
11:27:06 <elky> I refuse to apply the same benefit to anyone who wants to be an op
11:27:20 <elky> if we apply the shortcut to everyone, the worst will apply
11:28:08 <rww> If someone applied for #ubuntu ops and had a history of being k-lined on multiple networks, or flagrant op abuse in #ubuntu* non-core channels, or a demonstrated inability to do simple channel operation despite repeated instruction, I would say exactly the same thing in email to IRCC as I have said in email to IRCC about this.
11:28:26 <topyli> ok so this seems to be the disagreement. we agree that there should be a call for #lubuntu ops and the current ops can apply to be ops, and they go through the normal probation etc. but we don't know whether or not the current ops should be auto-chosen
11:29:04 <elky> topyli, yes, i stated as much earlier.
11:29:25 <topyli> yep, and i have been unable to convince you otherwise :)
11:29:57 <rww> And the ridiculous thing here is that you all know dang well that if some of the people on #lubuntu's access list applied for ops in any core channel they wouldn't get it.
11:29:58 <elky> because i refuse to do what i see as being negligent.
11:30:18 <rww> I'm not sure if you're ignoring it because of politics or what, but it's a bit ridiculous that you are.
11:30:43 <oCean> the "normal application process" and "auto chosen" are conflicting anyway, not?
11:30:48 <rww> oCean: yes
11:30:50 <topyli> yes
11:30:51 <elky> absolutely
11:31:45 <topyli> we could simply merge the team with our team and be done with it. but i agree that the usual probation and mentoring would be useful
11:32:04 <elky> er...
11:32:40 <elky> i should hope that the usual probation and mentoring would happen either way. if not, i don't have words to describe my opinion of your idea.
11:32:41 <oCean> I don't see why "auto chosen" (or "simply merge" is still an option, if there is going to be an application process anyway
11:33:10 <rww> oCean: because Lubuntu's leadership are unhappy that their choice of ops is being questioned, and leaning on IRCC to approve them all.
11:33:25 <elky> oCean, because some people want to skip the application process wholesale from my undertanding
11:34:18 <topyli> so normal process without any automatic opping seems popular. we'll have to see what the lubuntu team thinks, if they can accept it or if we have to find another way to deal with the situation. i have to go, but that's my idea
11:34:38 <jussi> topyli: I can support that
11:34:42 <oCean> rww, elky ok, I did not know/get that part
11:34:52 <topyli> you can action it to me, i'm off
11:35:23 <jussi> elky: ?
11:37:03 <elky> I'm not sure what i would be supporting there? It's seeming a little like a hostage situation.
11:37:20 <jussi> elky: its supporting your proposal if all parties support it.
11:37:53 <elky> jussi, I support that. The second part of what topyli says i don't.
11:37:54 <rww> If Lubuntu doesn't like IRCC procedures and the CC has in fact mandated that #lubuntu become core (which I don't believe they have, personally), Lubuntu can get over it.
11:38:05 <rww> They picked some crap ops, it's their fault this is happening in the first place.
11:38:37 <elky> rww I don't think the development team did much of the op picking actually.
11:38:44 <rww> In the event that there is not in fact a mandate that #lubuntu become core, they can feel free to not be core.
11:38:54 <elky> which means we're essentially dealing with 2 lubuntus
11:38:57 <rww> elky: then who did?
11:39:10 <elky> rww, at least one of the ops would have been self-chosen
11:39:18 <rww> elky: That is absurd.
11:39:29 <AlanBell> so an existing good lubuntu op, from today could go through the whole process without being deopped at any stage
11:39:31 <elky> rww, then who started the channel?
11:39:36 <jussi> AlanBell: yes
11:39:41 <rww> elky: whoever started Lubuntu, I would hope.
11:40:48 <rww> elky: anyway, it's immaterial. Regardless of who got on there themselves, #lubuntu's standards for granting ops are demonstrably flawed.
11:40:56 <elky> yes.
11:41:29 <rww> or, at least, flawed for #lubuntu-qua-core-channel. They may work fine for #lubuntu as it is.
11:43:01 <elky> i dont doubt it works fine for its existance right now. That's not the consequence at stake
11:43:03 <jussi> right, I have a friend just arriving, I will action topyli to send an email to the lubuntu list informing them of the application process etc.
11:43:23 <elky> you might as well end the meeting now, topyli is well gone i suspet
11:43:57 <jussi> #action topyli Send informative email to #lubuntu ops list, with guidelines and application stuff
11:43:57 * meetingology topyli Send informative email to #lubuntu ops list, with guidelines and application stuff
11:44:09 <jussi> #endmeeting